add_functional_test

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the operation is 'Mutating,' that it records the status as claimed without running or verifying, and that manually-added tests survive regeneration/refresh. It does not mention permission requirements or side effects like overwriting existing tests, but the key non-obvious behaviors are clearly surfaced, which is strong given no annotations are present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage boundaries and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds new information without redundancy, and the structure flows logically from purpose to alternatives to verification semantics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered structurally. The description addresses the tool's purpose, its relationship to generation and import, the meaning of the status field, and the verification process, making it fully contextual for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that status is an 'operator claim only' and that CI verification happens via a different tool, which clarifies the status parameter. It also frames functional_objective_ids as mapping the test to objectives, complementing the schema's reference to list_functional_objectives. Minor gap: no clarification of server_version, but the rest is well-supported.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hand-author a single functional test and map it to one or more objectives.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by name-dropping generate_functional_objectives, import_functional_tests, and submit_functional_tests, making the tool's unique role explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance: use this only for extra tests not produced by generation, use import_functional_tests for bulk-registering existing tests, and attach evidence via submit_functional_tests for CI verification. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria are directly stated with alternative tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.